Two-phase designs with failure time processes subject to nonsusceptibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiological studies based on 2-phase designs help ensure efficient use of limited resources in situations where certain covariates are prohibitively expensive to measure for a full cohort. Typically, these designs involve 2 steps: In phase I, data on an outcome and inexpensive covariates are acquired, and in phase II, a subsample is chosen in which the costly variable of interest is measured. For right-censored data, 2-phase designs have been primarily based on the Cox model. We develop efficient 2-phase design strategies for settings involving a fraction of long-term survivors due to nonsusceptibility. Using mixture models accommodating a nonsusceptible fraction, we consider 3 regression frameworks, including (a) a logistic "cure" model, (b) a proportional hazards model for those who are susceptible, and (c) regression models for susceptibility and failure time in those susceptible. Importantly, we introduce a novel class of bivariate residual-dependent designs to address the unique challenges presented in scenario (c), which involves 2 parameters of interest. Extensive simulation studies demonstrate the superiority of our approach over various phase II subsampling schemes. We illustrate the method through applications to the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.097 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".